Friday, September 11, 2009

Life Links 9/11/09

Wesley Smith responds to President Obama's claim that health care reform wouldn't allow government money to be used to pay for abortions by concisely sharing how it would.

At the LTI Blog, Josh Brahm points out how instead of providing an argument for how and why abortions wouldn't be covered, President Obama merely dismissed the claim.
I wanted to make an observation from last night that I haven’t really heard anyone bring up yet. President Obama has started a pattern of dismissing (and occasionally attacking) his opponents, instead of refuting their arguments. He listed several concerns last night that citizens have raised about abortion and “death panels”, among other things, and as he responded to most of those concerns, he simply dismissed them. “That’s a lie,” he would say, and most of the Democrats in the room would stand and applaud.

He never said, “You know, some well-meaning people have misunderstood or misread the bill, and think that abortion would be covered under the new plan. Actually, that view is mistaken because we are not going to include abortion under ‘family planning services’ or ‘reproductive health.’” THAT would have gotten my attention, because he would have been refuting our argument. It would have given us something to research so that we could double check the accuracy of our views, which is a good thing, because sometimes we’re right, and sometimes we’re wrong.

But, he didn’t do that. He just called us “liars,” and declared to the country that we are using dishonest “scare tactics” for political gain.

That’s not good enough. Any person of good will – but ESPECIALLY the President of the United States – should look honestly at the facts behind any claims, and then either refute them or concede the point.

In Australia, a young woman and her boyfriend are going to go to trial after admitting to buying a version of RU-486 in the Ukraine and then aborting in Australia.
RU486 was allowed into Australia just three years ago and can be administered only under medical supervision, but the laws surrounding its use are so uncertain that a number of doctors have stopped prescribing the drug altogether for fear of prosecution.

No comments:

Post a Comment